Full text for subscribers

WFL Publisher
Science and Technology
Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.12 (2): 1291-1295. 2014
www.world-food.net
Estimation of deposit and spray distribution in hydro sensible paper and
morning glory plants
Cleber Daniel de G. Maciel 1, Edivaldo D. Velini 2, Reginaldo T. de Souza 3, João I. de Souza 1,
Rafael R. Chagas 1, Marco A. Santos Silva 4 and Juliana P. Poletine 5
Unicentro - Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste, Campus CDETEG, 85.040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brasil. 2 Unesp-FCA,
Departamento de Produção Vegetal, C. Postal 237, 18603-970 Botucatu, SP, Brasil. 3 Embrapa Uva e Vinho, Sítio Embrapa,
Córrego Barra Bonita s/n. C. Postal: 241, 15700-000 Jales, SP, Brasil. 4 Engenheiro Agrônomo Autônomo, Ilha Solteira – SP.
5
Universidade Estadual de Maringá, 87.020-900, Maringá, PR, Brasil. e-mail: [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
1
Received 6 January 2014, accepted 8 April 2014.
Abstract
Herbicides application success depends, besides product correct choice, the observation of environmental conditions and application quality. The
work aimed to quantify the effects of surfactant addition in spraying solution, in natural and artificial targets, associated to different nozzle boom
angles in relation to application offset, by using distinct evaluation methods. Two experiments were conducted at NuPAM-FCA/UNESP, Botucatu
County, São Paulo State, constituted by ten treatments, in factorial scheme 2 × 5, corresponding to two spraying solutions conditions (absence or
presence of Aterbane BRTM (0.25% v/v) adjuvant) and five angles of spray nozzle in relation to offset application (-30°, -15°, 90°, +15° and +30°).
In Ipomea grandifolia leaves, the distribution and drops deposition of a tracer solution were evaluated by using scores visual and spectrophotometer
process. In hydro sensible papers, volumetric medium diameter (VMD), density (cm2) and drops medium diameter, covered area (%) and application
fees (L ha-1) were evaluated through e-SprinkleTM software. Aterbane BRTM (0.25% v/v) presence or absence, associated or no, to spray nozzles offset
did not provide significant differences in I. grandifolia spray deposition. The use of artificial targets presented applicative technical limitations in
relation to the use of natural ones as study matrix. Deposit and distribution variables esteem distinct behaviours, independent of target nature.
Key words: Target, tracer, deposition, application technology.
Introduction
Among distinct events that constitute the process of agricultural
production, pesticides application is one of the most demanding
process, since it serves not only to treatment of cultivated area,
as well as caring for environment preservation. However, despite
the recovery to rural producer by correct and careful use of
pesticides, which is observed in field conditions, there is lack of
information regarding application technology. Often, it is possible
to produce the desired effect, however inefficiently, due to nonutilization of the most appropriate equipment or technique, which
could result in the use of fewer or even less product waste due to
bad application conditions 3.
In this regard, studies relating to deposition (spraying quantity
retained in targets) and distribution (uniformity of spray deposits
in targets) of droplets by spray nozzles in crops and weeds are of
great importance in determining the efficiency of plant protection
products application. For this, the choice of appropriate tips is
crucial by interfering in coverage and flow distribution uniformity
of application 8, 9, 19.
Cunha and Peres 5 mentioned that properties intrinsic to the
drops are closely related to formulation components, highlighting
the adjuvant amount in the composition of spraying suspension
for each product. However, for operations in field conditions, such
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (2), April 2014
importance is given to the plant protection product to be applied
and application technique, disregarding the need for uniformity
and appropriate drops spectrum, in order to reach the target
efficiently and with minimal losses.
In the majority of studies, spraying distribution and deposition
variables in artificial and natural targets are measured through
qualitative and quantitative methods, such as the use of visual
scores, optical and chemical analysis measures. According to
Boschini et al. 1, the evaluations of sprayer performance by
retained amount and products distribution on target have always
been constant concern of researchers, where the use of tracers
compounds is frequently, added to spraying suspension.
In air applications and with turbo-sprayers, it is still a common
practice to use water sensitive papers to assess the distribution
and deposition of syrup sprayed. However, drops reflection and
the difficulty of many surfaces wetting are obstacles to drops
reflection, and consequently, the spraying effectiveness. Natural
targets, even though being preferred in studies of spray deposition
since faithfully constitute the characteristics of the studied target,
also show complexity and natural variability that affect retention
and spreading of the product applied.
The development of simple and reliable methods to evaluate
1291
the quality of pesticide applications is a challenge. Information
based only on visual assessments, even by using hydro sensible
paper, for example, would not be considered appropriate. With
informatics development and available methodologies to assess
the quality of pesticides application, it is possible to analyse
samples in enough number, and in non-subjective matter, allowing
more reliable conclusions, that become really easy to perform
applications evaluations, which were not possible before.
However, drops formation in spray nozzle may be significantly
changed by formulations and/or by adjuvant addition to sprayer
suspension and frequently the studies do not express the
importance of these variables. So, adjuvants act differently from
each other, affecting wetting, adhesion, spreading, foaming and
dispersion of sprayer suspension 4, 15. Similarly, it highlights the
fact that the addition of chemical components to sprayer
suspension may cause interactions between applied products and
negatively affect application results 17. For Ryckaert et al. 20, the
correct use of adjuvant may significantly increase applied products
performance, and in some cases alter the permeability of plant
surface, increasing pesticide penetration and its residual power.
The present work aimed to quantify the effects of surfactants
addition over deposition and distribution of sprayer suspension
in natural and artificial targets associated with different nozzles in
relation to application offset, by using different assessment
methods.
Materials and Methods
The work was constituted by two experiments conducted at
NuPAM-FCA/UNESP, Botucatu County, São Paulo State. Plots
were represented by vases with 1.0 kg of soil, where deposit and
distribution of agricultural spraying in natural and artificial targets
were evaluated, using four and five repetitions, consisting of two
Ipomoea grandifolia plants in four fully expanded leaves stage
and of a hydro sensible paper positioned on the soil surface, not
overlapped by the leaves, respectively.
The experimental design adopted was entirely randomized with
ten treatments, in factorial scheme 2 × 5, two conditions of spraying
suspension (Aterbane BRTM 0.25% v/v absence or presence) and
five spray nozzles tip angles relative to application offset (-30°,
-15°, 90°, +15° and +30°). Aterbane BRTM adjuvant is classified as
spreader-sticker and constituted by a mixture of condensed phenol
alcohol with ethylene oxide and organic sulphonates, with
commercial concentration of 466 g L-1. Positive and negative signs
were adopted to indicate the opposite and favour direction of
offset application, similarly to the studies carried out by Silva 23
and Tomazella et al. 25.
In all treatments, tracer solution formed by mixing colors bright
blue FDC-1 (0.3% w/v) with Poliglow 830 YLSS (0.3% w/v) and
Mancozeb fungicide (0.3% w/v) was used, with the objective of
generating information about amount of tracing deposited, as well
as the qualitative behaviour of drops distribution on the leaves.
In tracer solution application, a sprayer simulator armed with
spray boom of four nozzles XR VS 110.02, spaced 50 cm and
positioned at 50 cm high targets was used. Constant working
pressure was 210 kPa in travel speed of 3.6 km h-1, which provided
spraying suspension volume application of 200 L ha-1. At spray
room, the temperature and relative humidity were monitored
through digital thermo-hydro-anemometer, characterizing mediums
of 26°C and 63%, respectively, as well as closed room environment
1292
where wind interference was not allowed during the sprayings.
After application, the aerial parts of five plants of each treatment
were subjected to ultraviolet light in dark environment, where
drops distribution on cotyledonary leaves and posterior pairs of
defined leaves were assessed, using as criterion a visual scale of
standardized notes for 0 to 5 values, where zero (0) represents
coverage total absence, one (1) 25% coverage, two (2) 50%
coverage, three (3) 75% coverage, four (4) 100% “light” coverage
and five (5) 100% “heavy” coverage.
Tracer solution deposition in natural targets was assessed
through the wash of two I. grandifolia plants with 50 mL of distilled
water, in plastic bags, which were submitted to constant stirring
for 20 seconds. Amount of recovered solution was measured by
using a spectrophotometer, Cintra 40 model, similar to the
methodology used by Maciel et al. 14. After reading solution
retrieved, leaves of target plants were subjected to area leaf
determination by using a leaf area integrator, and then extrapolating
solutions concentration for µl cm-2.
Artificial targets (hydro sensible papers) have been collected
and packed in closed container, to minimize the absorption of
moisture from the air, and then scanned by using a scanner at 600
dpi resolution and analysed with the aid of e-SprinkleTM software.
In this phase, volumetric median diameter (VMD), droplets density
per cm2, droplet mean diameter, coverage area (%) and application
rate (L ha-1) parameters were assessed.
For the evaluation of I. grandifolia plants median distribution
(natural target), confidence interval obtained by the following
equation was used:
CI = (t × stdesv) / square root rn
where: CI = confidence interval; t = tabled t value at 5 % probability
level; stdesv = standard deviation; square root rn = square root of
repetition number.
Other obtained results were submitted to variance analysis by
F test and the means were compared using Tukey test (p<0.05).
Results and Discussion
Results showed that there was no significant differences in
sprayed suspension deposition for I. grandifolia species, in
adjuvant presence or absence, as well as to the different positions
of spray nozzles angle, in relation to application direction (Table
1). These results corroborate with those reported by Scudeler et
al. 21 for spraying suspension deposition of adaxial and abaxial
surfaces of soybean plants (IAC-8 genotype), in a controlled
environment, where influence of nozzle type and its inclination
angle in relation to application direction were not characterized.
However, the data obtained in the present study disagree with
Silva 23, Tomazela et al. 25 and Rodrigues et al. 18, who used
Brachiaria plantaginea, Cyperus rotundus and Commelina
benghalensis natural targets and observed significant increases
in spraying suspension deposit, mainly for 15° and 30° angles, in
offset direction.
Friesen and Wall 10 and Shaw et al. 22 also found that the
inclination of spray nozzles with traditional angle from 90° to 45°,
in application offset direction, promoted control gains of fluazifopp-butil over Avena fatua, Triticum aestivum and Hordeum vulgare
in rice crop, as well as, acifluorfen for Xanthium estrumarium
weed specie. These additions of deposition may be justified by
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (2), April 2014
Table 1. Mean deposition (µL cm-2) of tracer solution over I. grandifolia plants, using
or no adjuvant, associated to variation in spray nozzle angle, in relation to
application offset direction favor (+) or opposite (-).
to the standard angle of 90°. No deposition
on abaxial part of leaves from studied
species was found in any treatments. Cunha
and Carvalho 7 reported that adjuvant
Nozzle angle in relation to spray boom offset
Treatments
Mean
+30º
+15º
90º
-15º
-30º
selection should be done quite carefully,
Without Surfactant 1.4247
1.1609
1.2953
1.2413
1.2557
1.2756 a
and it is not advisable to generalize the
With Surfactant
1.2145
1.5352
1.3505
1.3004
1.2614
1.3324 a
results to all products, since there is
Mean
1.3197 a
1.1609 a
1.2954 a
1.2413 a
1.2557 a
difference between marketed products.
Variance Analysis
Spray Suspension Angle Spray Suspension x Angle
The improvement in drops distribution
F
0.2422 ns
0.9404 ns
0.5346 ns
D.M.S.(5%)
0.1588
0.3562
0.5037
on I. grandifolia seedlings observed in the
C.V. (%)
18. 84
adjuvant presence for angles with positive
Obs: - Means followed by the same small letter in lines and columns did not differ by Tukey test (p<0.05). - = No significant.
inclination perhaps may be explained by
leaves of referred targets that showed perpendicular disposition, increased adhesion of the drops on the leaves surface, as well as
and better provision of drops capture, unlike I. grandifolia, that by the “extra” force applied to them as a result of spraying
at application, leaves were well positioned in horizontal plane.
movement towards the application offset. Adjuvant presence in
In relation to Aterbane BRTM (Table 1), the results corroborate spraying suspension provided small drops and evident draining,
with those described by Carbonari et al. 2 and Iost and Raetano 11 characterized in visual analysis by accumulation of tracing
with Cynodon dactylon and Euphorbia heterophylla species, solution especially in definitive leaves (non cotyledonary). Cunha
respectively, where the use of the same adjuvant did not favour and Alves 4 reported that adjuvant effects on physic-chemical
the deposition of spraying suspension in quantitative terms, but properties of aqueous solutions proved to be dependent on the
in some situations, an improvement only in spraying distribution chemical composition and formulation, and the behaviour of these
uniformity over the plants was observed. Probably, obtained results features was not similar, even for adjuvant with the same indication
should be linked to different plant architectures analysed and of use.
their interaction with the suspension sprayed, since theoretically,
For the parameters related to drops distribution of spraying in
leaves oriented in horizontal position are more efficient at catching hydro sensible paper (Table 2), which were analysed and quantified
drops than the ones vertically positioned. Maciel et al. 13 evaluating through computational resources, the methodology found
the quality of spraying tracer solution in bean plants and significant differences for some variables studied, which diverged
Brachiaria plantaginea, found that Aterbane BRTM use reduced from the responses obtained in natural targets. In this sense, VMD
significantly the deposition over the crop and had increase in estimates responses and application rate resembled to deposition
results in natural target, showing no significant differences for
weed.
For spraying distribution in leaves of I. grandifolia specie (Fig. deposition condition on Aterbane BRTM adjuvant presence or
1), it was possible to observe through the visual scale of adopted absence. Oliveira et al. 16, who studied the characteristics of drops
notes (0 to 5), that the presence of adjuvant (S) significantly formation through particle meter, by the method of laser diffraction,
increased the drops mean distribution on adaxial surface of the also found that adjuvant addition did not alter distribution pattern
three pairs of seedlings leaves in relation to positive inclination and uniformity of drops formed.
angles (favour to the application offset direction) of spray nozzles.
By another side, to the following variables: density, mean
However, for nozzles angles with negative inclination, that is, diameter and coverage area of deposited drops in hydro sensible
against application offset, the adjuvant presence in spray solution papers, the results proved to be significantly different in relation
significantly reduced the drops distribution in the three pairs of to the use or non-use of adjuvant and spray nozzle angle.
leaves, when compared with the adjuvant absence in 90° angle Suguisawa et al. 24, who used hydro sensible cards for analysis of
position. In Aterbane BRTM absence, all angles have provided glyphosate application quality through the construction of geo
significantly similar distribution of sprayed drops, when compared referenced maps, observed high variability of results for coverage
area and drops density. According to the authors, the explanation
6
for this behaviour may be related to an increase in environment
temperature and decrease in air relative humidity during the day.
5
Artificial target estimated the superiority of quality application
4
for nozzles angles towards boom offset (+) in relation to the reverse
3
position (-), generating undue conclusions induction, such as the
2
increase in application rate and drops DMV, due to the greater
inertia force applied to the same, during the offset movement, a
1
fact that was not noted for natural target (I. grandifolia) (Table 2).
0
Density and droplets mean diameter allow the same reasoning,
NN 30°+
30°+
15°+
15°+
90° SS90°+
N
15°15°30°30°-30º + SS 30º
+ N
N 15º
+ S
S 15º
+ N
N 90º
90º
N 15º
- S
S 15º
- N
N 30º
- S
S 30º
Spraying
relation
to boom
Sprayingangle
angle ininrelation
to boom
offset offset
and higher values were estimated in Aterbane BRTM adjuvant
cotyledonary
Firstpairpair
of
Second
Mean
cotyledonary
leaves
First
of leaves
Second
pairpair
of leaves
Mean
presence and absence in spraying suspension, respectively, which
leaves
leaves
of leaves
in spite of showing a reverse logic relation, do not match the
Figure 1. Distribution of spray droplets over I. grandifolia seedlings,
distribution results, determined by visual notes scale for natural
by using tracer solutions plus (S) or no of adjuvant (N), and different
targets.
spraying nozzles angles, in relation to the offset direction toward (+)
In relation to angles disposition, significant differences in
or against (-) application, according to visual notes scale from 0 to 5.
Note: 0 = 0% coverage; 1 = 25 % coverage; 2 = 50% coverage; 3 = 75% coverage; 4 =
estimates of density, mean diameter and coverage area of sprayed
Scale notes
ns
100% light coverage and 5 = 100% heavy coverage.
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (2), April 2014
1293
Table 2. Parameters of sprayed drops distribution over hydro sensible paper, plus adjuvant or not,
associated with the variation in spray nozzle angle, relative to the direction of offset
application toward (+) or (-) opposite.
Droplets VMD
Without Surfactant
With Surfactant
Média
Density (Nº/cm2)
Without Surfactant
With Surfactant
Mean
Mean Diameter
Without Surfactant
With Surfactant
Mean
Covered Area (%)
Without Surfactant
With Surfactant
Mean
Application rate (L ha-1)
Without Surfactant
With Surfactant
Mean
Variance Analyzes
VMD (paper)
Density (Nº cm-2)
Drops Mean Diameter
Diameter
Covered Area (%)
Application Rate
(L ha-1)
+30º
222.23
223.73
222.98 a
+30º
85.66 B
106.91 A
96.28 c
+30º
142.59 A
128.07 B
135.33 a
+30º
36.71 A
36.60 A
36.66 b
+30º
211.10
188.34
199.72 ab
F
D.M.S. (5%)
C.V. (%)
F
D.M.S. (5%)
C.V. (%)
F
D.M.S. (5%)
C.V. (%)
F
D.M.S. (5%)
C.V. (%)
F
D.M.S. (5%)
C.V. (%)
Nozzle angle relative to boom offset
+15º
90º
-15º
-30º
212.32
192.17
190.48
185.26
199.16
202.31
185.26
195.70
205.74 ab
197.24 b
190.48 b
187.87 b
+15º
90º
-15º
-30º
104.86 B
121.68 B
122.83 B
125.13 A
143.51 A
145.61 A 145.61 A
123.60 A
124.18 b
133.64 a
134.22 a
124.36 b
+15º
90º
-15º
-30º
132.45 A
125.50 A 125.35 A
119.66 B
118.39 B
125.79 A
116.64 B
126.32 A
125.42 b
125.65 b
121.00 b
123.00 b
+15º
90º
-15º
-30º
38.02 B
39.04 A
38.49 A
35.11 B
40.13 A
37.59 A
39.79 A
39.93 A
39.08 a
38.32 ab
39.14 a
37.52 ab
+15º
90º
-15º
-30º
206.31
180.40
171.06
174.34
238.67
202.75
172.78
188.52
222.49 a
191.58 ab 181.43 b
171.91 b
Spray Suspension
Angle
Spray Suspension x Angle
0.0266 ns
7.8349 *
1.0052 ns
9.15
20.44
28.91
171.7419 *
74.3051 *
16.1618 *
3.24
7.25
10.24
22.5675 *
14.8925 *
10.5524 *
2.58
5.77
8.16
10.894 *
5.489 *
6.910 *
0.82
1.83
2.59
3.6345 *
1.1001 ns
1.1147 ns
18.34
40.96
57.93
-
Mean
201.23 A
200.49 A
Mean
112.03 B
133.05 A
Mean
129.11 A
123.04 B
Mean
37.47 B
38.81 A
Mean
188.64 A
198.21 A
7.98
4.63
3.58
3.75
16.78
Obs: - Means followed by the same capital letter in the columns and small letter in lines, do not differ from each other by Tukey Test (p<0.05). - ns = No significant.
* = Significant.
droplets on artificial targets were also observed. These results are
in agreement with those reported by Iost and Raetano 11, who
evaluated the effect of spray droplets size to adjuvant with
characteristics anti-drift (AntiderivaTM, UnoTM, ProntoTM, Li-3 700TM
and SupersilTM), and noticed only little influence on VMD and the
potential of drift loss, to doses recommended by manufacturers.
Cunha et al. 6 also verified that the effect of adjuvant in droplets
spectrum was dependent on used product spray nozzle, and that
adjuvant addition to spray suspension did not alter the drift
potential risk. Second to Lan et al. 12, adjuvant affects application
performance, but these effects may be positive or negative,
regarding the deposition of product on target.
Conclusions
Presence or absence of Aterbane BRTM (0.25% v/v) adjuvant in
spraying solution, associated or not to spray nozzle angles
disposition, did not provide significant differences in spraying
suspension deposition on I. grandifolia plants.
Hydro sensible paper and specific software which were used to
estimate the deposit and/or distribution of agricultural pesticide
spraying suspension, despite being a practical and economically
viable method, still feature application technical limitations in
relation to methods that were used natural targets as matrix of
1294
study.
There is no necessarily direct relationship between deposit and
distribution variables estimated by distinct behaviours, regardless
of target nature.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Unesp-FCA, Departament of Plant
Production, Botucatu County, São Paulo State, Brazil, for technical
support.
References
Boschini, L., Contiero, R. L., Macedo, Jr. E. K. and Guimarães, V. F.
2008. Avaliação da deposição da calda de pulverização em função da
vazão e do tipo de bico hidráulico na cultura da soja. Acta Scientiarum
Agronomy 30:171-175 (in Portuguese).
2
Carbonari, C. A., Martins, D., Marchi, S. R. and Cardoso, L. R. 2005.
Efeito de surfactantes e pontas de pulverização na deposição de calda
de pulverização em plantas de grama-seda. Planta Daninha 23:725729 (in Portuguese).
3
Costa, A. G. F., Velini, E. D., Negrisoli, E., Carbonari, C. A., Rossi, C. V.
S. V., Corrêa, M. R. and Silva, F. M. L. 2007. Efeito da intensidade do
vento, da pressão e de pontas de pulverização na deriva de aplicações
de herbicidas em pré-emergência. Planta Daninha 25:203-210 (in
Portuguese).
1
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (2), April 2014
Cunha, J. P. A. R. and Alves, G. S. 2009. Características físico-químicas
de soluções aquosas com adjuvantes de uso agrícola. Interciência 34:655659.
5
Cunha, J. P. A. R. and Peres, T. C. M. 2010. Influência de pontas de
pulverização e adjuvante no controle químico da ferrugem asiática da
soja. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 32:597-602 (in Portuguese).
6
Cunha, J. P. A. R., Bueno, M. R. and Ferreira, M. C. 2010. Espectro de
gotas de pontas de pulverização com adjuvantes de uso agrícola. Planta
Daninha 28:1153-1158 (in Portuguese).
7
Cunha, J. P. A. R. and Carvalho, W. P. A. 2005. Distribuição volumétrica
de aplicações aéreas de agrotóxicos utilizando adjuvantes. Engenharia
Agrícola 13:130-135 (in Portuguese).
8
Farinha, J. V., Martins, D., Costa, N. V. and Domingos, V. D. 2009.
Deposição da calda de pulverização em cultivares de soja no estádio
R1. Ciência Rural 39:1738-1744 (in Portuguese).
9
Fernandes, A. P., Parreira, R. S., Ferreira, M. C. and Romani, G. N.
2007. Caracterização do perfil de deposição e do diâmetro de gotas e
otimização do espaçamento entre bicos na barra de pulverização.
Engenharia Agrícola 27:728-733 (in Portuguese).
10
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1991. Effect of application factors on
efficacy of fluazifop-p-butyl in flax. Weed Technology 5:504-508.
11
Iost, C. A. R. and Raetano, C. G. 2010. Tensão superficial dinâmica e
ângulo de contato de soluções aquosas com surfatantes em superfícies
artificiais e naturais. Engenharia Agrícola 30:670-680 (in Portuguese).
12
Lan, Y., Hoffmann, W., Fritz, B., Martin, D. and Lopez, J. D. E. 2007.
Drift reduction with drift control adjuvant. ASABE: St. Joseph (paper
07-1060), 14 p.
13
Maciel, C. D. G., Souza, R. T., Silva, R. H., Velini, E. D. and Lemos, L.
B. 2001. Avaliação do depósito e distribuição da calda de pulverização
em plantas de feijoeiro e Brachiaria decumbens. Planta Daninha 19:103110 (in Portuguese).
14
Maciel, C. D. G., Velini, E. D. and Bernardo, R. S. 2007. Desempenho
de pontas de pulverização em Brachiaria brizantha cv. MG-4 para
controle de ninfas de cigarrinhas das pastagens. Engenharia Agrícola
27:66-74 (in Portuguese).
15
Mendonça, C. G., Raetano, C. G. and Mendonça, C. G. 2007. Tensão
superficial estática de soluções aquosas com óleos minerais e vegetais
utilizados na agricultura. Engenharia Agrícola 27:16-23 (in Portuguese).
16
Oliveira, J. R. G., Ferreira, M. C. and Fernandes, D. R. R. 2008. Efeito
de adjuvante no diâmetro de gotas e a determinação do espaçamento
entre bicos na barra de pulverização da ponta SF 11003. In: Sintag:
Simpósio Internacional De Tecnologia De Aplicação De Agrotóxicos,
4, Anais. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico, 2008. CD-ROM
(Documentos IAC, 86). (in Portuguese).
17
Queiroz, A. A., Martins, J. A. S. and Cunha, J. P. A. R. 2008. Adjuvantes
e a qualidade da água na aplicação de agrotóxicos. Bioscience Journal
24:8-19 (in Portuguese).
18
Rodrigues, A. C. P. I., Filho, S. I. B. S., Martins, D., Costa, N. V.,
Rocha, D. C. and Souza, G. S. F. I. 2010. Avaliação qualitativa e
quantitativa na deposição de calda de pulverização em Commelina
benghalensis. Planta Daninha 28:421-428 (in Portuguese).
19
Román, R. A. A., Cortez, J. W., Ferreira, M. da C. and Oliveira, J. R. G.
di. 2009. Cobertura da cultura da soja pela calda fungicida em função
de pontas de pulverização e volumes de calda. Scientia Agraria 10:223232.
20
Ryckaert, B., Spanoghe, P., Haesaert, G., Heremans, B., Isebaert, S.
and Steurbaut, W. 2007. Quantitative determination of the inuence of
adjuvant on foliar fungicide residues. Crop Protection 26:1589-1594.
21
Scudeler, F., Bauer, F. C. and Raetano, C. G. 2004. Ângulo de barra e
ponta de pulverização na deposição da pulverização em soja. In: Sintag:
Simpósio Internacional De Tecnologia De Aplicação De Agrotóxicos,
3, Proceedings. Botucatu: FEPAF, pp. 13-16 (in Portuguese).
22
Shaw, D. R., Morris, W. H., Webster, E. P. and Smith, D. B. 2000.
Effects of spray volume and droplet size on herbicide deposition and
common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control. Weed Technology
14:321-326.
4
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (2), April 2014
Silva, M. A. S. 2000. Depósitos da calda de pulverização no solo e em
plantas de tiririca (Cyperus rotundus L.) em diferentes condições de
aplicação. Botucatu. Tese (Doutorado em Agronomia/Agricultura).
Faculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Universidade Estadual Paulista,
57 p. (in Portuguese).
24
Suguisawa, J. M., Franco, F. N., Silva, S. S. and Peche Filho, A. 2007.
Qualidade de aplicação de herbicida em lavoura de trigo. Engenharia
Agrícola 27:41-47 (in Portuguese).
25
Tomazela, M. S. I., Martins, D., Marchi, S. R. and Negrisoli, E. M. S.
2006. Avaliação da deposição da calda de pulverização em função da
densidade populacional de Brachiaria plantaginea, do volume e do
ângulo de aplicação. Planta Daninha 24:83-189 (in Portuguese).
23
1295